Funniest thing about this is that today, Springbank released a new "and improved" bottle design. In my opinion it looks exponentially worse. But with a single malt as good as Springbank, I'd pay ever penny if it came in a mason jar with tape for a label. Ha ha.

Fair enough - but I'd rather have a superb malt in a bottle with a poor label than an underwhelming whisky in premium-deluxe-packaging. Take independent bottlers, for instance, most of them use rather simplistic labels & packaging, and yet you can find some amazing drams amongst them. Overprized blends such as Johnnie Walker Blue Label on the other hand, try to hide their lack in quality behind shining boxes and advertisement. I don't say that I don't appreciate a nice-style bottle - but in the end, I spend my cash for the whisky, not the packaging.

I think it's a bit of both. When I don't know the brand and want to try something new, I'll shop with my eyes. Once I taste it, I'll only come back if the intrinsic quality is great. So...in marketing...cost of acquisition of a new customer is the labels and eye-candy. Cost of sustaining a returning customer is price and quality.

@Slainte: I disagree. The messenger is just as important as the message - especially if it causes people to overlook an otherwise excellent whisky.

At the end of the day, all that matters is the intrinsic quality of the malt. Not?